OK, I’d like some interaction if I’ve missed anything, because I am busy with stuff, even though I decided to take some time to start the report.
First, I’ve read I. A. 1 on Election in the Westminster Standards. I don’t see anything wrong with it. It is standard Reformed theology. I have to say that if the report is going to claim that anyone in the PCA disagrees with this, I hope they prove their case because I’m highly capable.
(Perhaps they don’t make such a claim. I just searched for the word “arminian” and didn’t find it. So, if we’re not Arminians then we should all be calvinists and the reports material on election and Westminster is common ground for all of us, right?)
More later
Here are my comments on Part I.A.1 Election & Westminster Standards:
Report says:
“Clearly, the Standards’ doctrine of election unto life is anchored in God’s decree from eternity past, provides the basis for the doctrines of final perseverance of the saints in the future, (WCF 17:1, 2) and the believer’s assurance of eternal life (WCF 17.2; 18.3).”
My Disagreement:
Our “perseverance” indeed depends on God’s eternal decree (as WCF 17.2 rightly asserts), but our “Assurance” does not.
Neither the bible nor the confession calls us to look primarily to “God’s eternal decree of election” for our assurance. To the contrary, WCF 18.3 calls us to “the right use of ordinary means” to acquire assurance.
WCF 18.3 This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience,(4) the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.
Likewise, the Scriptures assure us of salvation when we 1) Repent of our sins, 2) believe on Christ, 3) are baptized for the forgiveness of sins, 4) confess our sins, 5) obey Jesus Christ, 6) profess that Christ is Lord, 7) love the brethren, etc.
Report says:
“While the Westminster Confession counsels us to exercise great care in our handling of the Bible’s teaching on election, it positively celebrates the importance of the doctrine of decretal election for assurance (WCF 3.8)
My Response:
WCF 3.8 does not seem to celebrate the importance of the doctrine of election for assurance at all; 3.8 doesn’t say we gain assurance BY our doctrine of eternal election / predestination.
Rather, WCF 3.8 seems to say we gain assurance OF our eternal election BY our OBEDIENCE. —
WCF 3:8 “… men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation, to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.
In my opinion, the committee seems to have misrepresented the Standards when it comes to our means of assurance. (at least by what they say in this section of the report — from a quick reading I think it is better later on)
Section concludes with the following good statement:
“Because God has appointed both the means and the end of his election, all of the elect, and only the elect, are redeemed by Christ, effectually called to faith in Christ by the Spirit, justified, adopted, sanctified, kept bthe power of teh Spirit and saved”
Yes! This is certainly true when these words are used in their “confessional” sense (as we should expect people to use them unless they qualify otherwise)
But the FV position seems to be that many of these words have a broader range of meaning in the Scriptures, and they are sometimes applied to those who are not predestined unto life.
That is not to say that the FV guys disagree with the doctrine at all; as far as I can tell from their writings, absolutely no FV guy disagrees with the DOCTRINE of “Election” in our standards. They simply argue that we must define the “elect” more broadly when expositing certain bible texts; similarly we must be able to define other words (normally associated with “eternal salvation”) more broadly as well. (i.e. the unbelieving husband is “sanctified” by his wife… 1 Cor 7:14)
I suspect that the whole “Election” aspect of this controversy would go away if we substituted the phrase “Predestined Unto Eternal Life before the foundation of the world” for the word “elect” in the Standards. – but that would be a mouthful.
*Mark, please let me know if it seems I am misunderstanding/misrepresenting the FV position. thanks
Actually, Andrew, I’ve said some similar stuff. I guess I was thinking not really of the Confession but the Bible, like when Paul tells the Ephesians they have been chosen in Christ, or Romans 8. This is obviously meant to instill confidence and assurance.
On the other hand…. I’ve noted the same thing about a careful reading of the Confession. Not that the confession is unbliblcal on this point because the Bible says a lot about assurance in different contexts.
I need to go back to the drawing board. In fact, I’m thinking that blogging is not the best way to sort through all this.
Thanks for your comment.
Those are some great comments Andrew. Thanks